Vulpes vulpes - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Red Fox
Other English Common Names: red fox
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 180604)
French Common Names: renard roux
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105935
Element Code: AMAJA03010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Carnivores
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Vulpes
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Vulpes vulpes
Taxonomic Comments: American populations formerly known as V. fulva or V. fulvus, now are regarded as conspecific with Old World red fox (V. vulpes).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 15Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (21Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S4), Alaska (S5), Arizona (S3), Arkansas (S4), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S4), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S4), Kansas (S4), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S4), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S4S5), Missouri (S4), Montana (S5), Navajo Nation (S5), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (S3), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S3), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S3), Oregon (S4?), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S5), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (SNA), Texas (S4), Utah (S5), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S5), Washington (S5), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (S4S5), Wyoming (S5)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S5), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (S4), Northwest Territories (S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Nunavut (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5), Yukon Territory (S5)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS:C
Comments on USESA: Subspecies necator (the Sierra Nevada Red Fox known from California) has been added to the candidate list.
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix III

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Holarctic. Throughout North America north of Mexico except for parts of the Southwest (but see Mikesic and Larue 2003) and Rocky Mountains. Though the species is native to North America, introductions were made in eastern North America during colonial times, resulting in increased numbers and/or range expansion in some areas. Range expanded in North Amercia in the 1900s (Nowak 1991).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Holarctic. Throughout North America north of Mexico except for parts of the Southwest (but see Mikesic and Larue 2003) and Rocky Mountains. Though the species is native to North America, introductions were made in eastern North America during colonial times, resulting in increased numbers and/or range expansion in some areas. Range expanded in North Amercia in the 1900s (Nowak 1991).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TNexotic, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2005; Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Apache (04001), Navajo (04017)*
CA Alpine (06003), Amador (06005)*, Butte (06007)*, El Dorado (06017), Fresno (06019), Inyo (06027), Lassen (06035), Madera (06039), Mariposa (06043)*, Modoc (06049), Mono (06051), Nevada (06057), Placer (06061), Plumas (06063), Shasta (06089), Sierra (06091)*, Siskiyou (06093), Tehama (06103), Trinity (06105)*, Tulare (06107), Tuolumne (06109)
NM Mckinley (35031), San Juan (35045)
NV Elko (32007), White Pine (32033)*
OR Deschutes (41017), Douglas (41019)*, Hood River (41027), Jackson (41029), Jefferson (41031), Klamath (41035), Lane (41039), Linn (41043)
UT San Juan (49037)*
WA Chelan (53007), Kittitas (53037), Lewis (53041), Okanogan (53047), Pierce (53053), Skamania (53059), Yakima (53077)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
14 Chaco (14080106)+, Chinle (14080204)+, Lower San Juan (14080205)+*
15 Upper Puerco (15020006)+
16 Northern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020308)+, Truckee (16050102)+, Upper Carson (16050201)+*, East Walker (16050301)+, West Walker (16050302)+, Long-Ruby Valleys (16060007)+, Spring-Steptoe Valleys (16060008)+*
17 Methow (17020008)+, Upper Yakima (17030001)+, Naches (17030002)+, Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105)+, Klickitat (17070106)+, Upper Deschutes (17070301)+, Lower Deschutes (17070306)+, Upper Cowlitz (17080004)+, Middle Fork Willamette (17090001)+, Mckenzie (17090004)+, North Umpqua (17100301)+, Upper Rogue (17100307)+, Upper Skagit (17110005)+, Puyallup (17110014)+, Nisqually (17110015)+
18 Williamson (18010201)+, Upper Klamath Lake (18010203)+, Shasta (18010207)+*, Scott (18010208)+*, Trinity (18010211)+*, Upper Pit (18020002)+, Lower Pit (18020003)+, Mccloud (18020004)+, Sacramento headwaters (18020005)+, North Fork Feather (18020121)+, East Branch North Fork Feather (18020122)+, Middle Fork Feather (18020123)+*, Upper Yuba (18020125)+, Upper Bear (18020126)+, North Fork American (18020128)+, South Fork American (18020129)+*, Battle Creek (18020153)+, Thomes Creek-Sacramento River (18020156)+, Big Chico Creek-Sacramento River (18020157)+, Butte Creek (18020158)+*, Upper Kern (18030001)+*, South Fork Kern (18030002)+, Upper Kaweah (18030007)+*, Upper Dry (18030009)+*, Upper King (18030010)+*, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040001)+, Upper San Joaquin (18040006)+, Upper Chowchilla-Upper Fresno (18040007)+, Upper Merced (18040008)+*, Upper Tuolumne (18040009)+, Upper Stanislaus (18040010)+, Upper Mokelumne (18040012)+, Upper Cosumnes (18040013)+*, Surprise Valley (18080001)+*, Honey-Eagle Lakes (18080003)+, Mono Lake (18090101)+, Crowley Lake (18090102)+, Owens Lake (18090103)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeds in winter. Gestation lasts 51-56 (average 53) days. Litter of 1-10 (average 4-5) young is born in March-April. Young are weaned in 8-10 weeks, when young leave den and learn to hunt with parents. Male and female may divide young between two dens. Young become independent in fall. Sexually mature the winter after their birth.
Ecology Comments: Summer home range varies greatly, 142-1280 acres (Ables 1969); winter ranges more extensive; home range diameter usually 2-4 km, up to 8 km or more if food scarce (see Caire et al. 1989). Social groups in a city in England exhibited drifting territoriality; ranges averaged about 40 ha (Doncaster and MacDonald 1991). In Japan, spring-summer home range was 357-631 ha; foxes moved about 6 km each night in going from village to village (Cavallini, 1992, J. Mamm. 73:321-325). Averages one family (about 7 foxes) per 4 sq miles (Baker 1983). May be excluded by coyote from some areas of otherwise suitable habitat.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: Various open and semi-open habitats. Usually avoids dense forest, although open woodlands frequently are used. Sometimes occurs in suburban areas or even cities (e.g., in England). May range onto sea ice (Labrador). Maternity dens are in burrows dug by fox or abandoned by other mammals, often in open fields or wooded areas, sometimes under rural buildings, in hollow logs, under stumps, etc.
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Frugivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Opportunistic omnivore; eats whatever is available--small mammals, carrion, birds, insects, fruit, human refuse, etc. Rabbits and mice are common prey. Often uses same foraging route.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Mainly crepuscular and nocturnal.
Length: 103 centimeters
Weight: 6800 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Harvested for pelt in some areas.
Management Summary
Help
Species Impacts: In California, expanding non-native red fox populations pose a threat to endangered kit fox populations (Ralls and White 1995).
Management Requirements: Sterile red foxes have been used to eliminate introduced arctic foxes from Alaskan islands (to restore habitat for birds) (Bailey 1992, 1993).

Control of red fox predation on duck nests in the prairie pothole region can be facilitated by managing for the presence of low number of coyotes, which exclude the more destructive foxes (NBS news release, 29 June 1994).

Monitoring Requirements: See Kreeger et al. (1990) for information on physiological responses to foothold traps.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Den
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Major water barriers (arbitrarily set at 300 meters wide at low water) that do not freeze.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Justification: Red foxes are highly mobile, and dispersal can be extensive (e.g., averaging 31 km in males and 11 km in females, Storm et al. 1976).

Home range size is highly variable, ranging from dozens to thousands of hectares, reflecting differences in habitat quality (reviewed by Lariviere and Pasitschniak-Arts 1996). Grzimek (1975) reported home ranges varying from 500 to 1200 hectares in good habitat, 2000 to 5000 hectares in poor habitat. Sargent (1972) and Storm et al. (1976) record a range of 150 to 1500 hectares. In northwestern British Columbia tundra, a mean home range of 1600 hectares was reported (Jones and Theberge 1982). Winter home ranges usually 2-4 kilometers in diameter; summer ranges smaller (Caire et al. 1989). A theoretical circular home range of 1000 hectares has a diameter of about 3.5 kilometers.

Separation distance is arbitrary but attempts to balance the high mobility of these mammals against the need for occurrences of reasonable size for conservation use. Occurrence delineation requires attention to seasonal changes in location and habitat use (if any); different parts of the annual home range are of course included in the same occurrence regardless of how far apart they are.

Unsuitable habitat includes extensive, dense, unbroken forest (although maternity dens may be located in the outer parts such habitat).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 3 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a home range of 700 hectares.
Date: 22Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 06Feb1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Ables, E. D. 1969. Activity studies of red foxes in southern Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:145-153.

  • Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pp. 164-179 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch (eds). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ottawa. 1150 pp.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • Bailey, E. P. 1992. Red foxes, VULPES VULPES, as biological control agents for introduced arctic foxes, ALOPEX LAGOPUS, on Alaskan islands. Can. Field-Nat. 106:200-205.

  • Bailey, E. P. 1993. Introduction of foxes to Alaskan islands--history, effects on avifauna, and eradication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 193. iv + 53 pp.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, and University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. xxv + 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Bauer, E.A. 1994. Wild dogs: the wolves, coyotes, and foxes of North America. Chronicle Books, San Francisco. 118p.

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Benson, S.B. 1935. A Biological Reconnaissance of Navajo Mountain, Utah. University of California Publications in Zoology 40(14):439-456.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • CRAIN, J.L. AND J.W. CLIBURN. 1965. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE MAMMALS OF SOUTHEASTERN MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 2:271-280.

  • CREEL, GORDON C., AND W.A. THORNTON. 1971. A NOTE ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND SPECIFIC STATUS OF THE FOX GENUS VULPES IN WEST TEXAS. SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 15:402-404.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1975. Red Fox. Hinterland Who's Who. Environment Canada, Wildlife Service, Ottawa.

  • Cannings, S. 2001. EO Specifications for Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). NatureServe, Unpublished. 1 pp.

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Connor, P.F. 1966. The mammals of the Tug Hill Plateau, New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. 406. 82 pp.

  • Connor, P.F. 1971. The mammals of Long Island, New York. NYS Museum and Science Service Bull. 416. 78 pp.

  • Cooley, D., C.D. Eckert, and R.R. Gordon. 2012. Herschel Island?Qikiqtaruk Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Program: Key Findings and Recommendations. Unpublished report. Yukon Parks. Whitehorse, Yukon.

  • Csuti, B., A. J. Kimmerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife: distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 492 pp.

  • Dawson, N. 2001. A survey of Ontario trappers to estimate wildlife population levels and population changes: 1999-2000 Summary Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Region, Wildlife Assessment Program. Unpaginated.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario. 120 pp.

  • Doncaster, C. P., and D. W. MacDonald. 1991. Drifting territoriality in the red fox VULPES VULPES. J. Anim. Ecol. 60:423-439.

  • Durrant, Stephen D. 1952. Mammals of Utah: taxonomy and distribution. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, Vol. 6, pp. 1-549.

  • FINDLEY, J.S., ET.AL. 1975. MAMMALS OF NEW MEXICO. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO PRESS, ALBUQUERQUE.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P. et al. 1992. Mammals of Colorado. Review manuscript.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • GOETZE, J.R., R.W. MANNING, F.D. YANCEY, AND C. JONES. 1996. THE MAMMALS OF KIMBLE COUNTY, TEXAS. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 160:1-31.

  • Gier, H. T. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the coyote (Canis latrans). Pages 247-262 in M. W. Fox, ed. The Wild Canids; their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Van Nostrand and Reinhold Co., New York. xvi + 508 pp.

  • Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.

  • Goodpaster, W.W. and Hoffmeister, D.F. 1952. Notes on the mammals of western Tennessee. Journal of Mammalogy 33(3):

  • Gordon, D.C. 1986. Mammals of Jefferson and Lewis counties, New York. Humphrey Press, Canandaigua, N.Y. 135 pp.

  • Government of the Northwest Territories (NWT). 2000. NWT Species Monitoring - Infobase. Available online: http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/monitor (June 2001). Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, GNWT, Yellowknife, NT.

  • Grzimek, B. 1975. Grzimek's animal life encyclopedia. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

  • HALL, E.R. 1981. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, SECOND EDITION, 2 VOLUMES. JOHN WILEY & SONS, NEW YORK. (1:600 P., 2:581 P.).

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HALL,E. AND K.KELSON. 1959. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, VOL 1 & 2.

  • HAMILTON, W.J. JR., AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, ITHACA, NEW YORK. 346 P.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1083 pp.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hamilton, W.J., Jr. and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hebda, A.J. 2011. List of mammals of Nova Scotia (including synonyms used in the literature relating to Nova Scotia) (revision 2) 24 July 2011. Nova Scotia Museum Collections Unit, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 24 pp. Online. Available: https://naturalhistory.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/images/names_and_synonyms_ver3.pdf

  • Henry, J. D. 1986. Red fox: the catlike canid. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 174 pp.

  • Hoffmeister, Donald F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press and The Arizona Game and Fish Department.

  • Hutchinson, B.C. 1985. 1985 Status Report on the Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes) in Canada. Prepared for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

  • Jackson, Hartley T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI 53701. 504pp.

  • Johnson, R. E., and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial mammals of Washington State: Location data and predicted distributions. Volume 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis- Final Report (K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich, eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 304 pp.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • Jones, R.E. and R.J. Aulerich. 1981. Bibliography of foxes. Michigan State Univ., Agric. Exp. Sta. Jour. Art. No. 9871, 141 pp.

  • KENNEDY, M.L. 1968. A SURVEY OF THE MAMMALS OF DE SOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. M.S. THESIS, MEMPHIS STATE UNIVERSITY.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1974. A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI MAMMALS. STUDIES IN NATURAL SCIENCES. 2(1):1-36.

  • Kreeger, T. J., et al. 1990. Pathological responses of red foxes to foothold traps. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:147-160.

  • LARIVIERE, SERGE AND MARIA PASITSCHNIAK-ARTS. 1996. VULPES VULPES. MAMM. SPECIES (537):1-11.

  • LEHMAN, N., A. EISENHAWER, K. HANSEN, L.D. MECH, R.O. PETERSON, P.J.P. GOGAN, AND R.K. WAYNE. 1991. INTROGRESSION OF COYOTE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA INTO SYMPATRIC NORTH AMERICAN GRAY WOLF POPULATIONS. EVOLUTION 45(1):104-119.

  • LOWERY, G.H., JR. 1974. THE MAMMALS OF LOUISIANA AND ITS ADJACENT WATERS. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 565 P.

  • Lariviere, S., and M. Pasitschniak-Arts. 1996. VULPES VULPES. Mammalian Species (537):1-11.

  • Layne, J.N. and W.H. McKeon. 1956. Some aspects of red fox and gray fox reproduction in New York. New York Fish and Game J. 3(1):44-74.

  • Linzey, D. and A. Linzey. 1968. Mammals of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journ. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 84(3):328-414.

  • Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1?93.

  • Lloyd, H.G. 1980. The Red Fox. B.T. Batsford Ltd. London. 320 pp.

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Kingsport Press, Inc. Kingsport, Tennessee. 565 pp.

  • MISSISSIPPI MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 1989. COUNTY INFORMATION FOR MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • MITCHELL, W.A. AND C.O. MARTIN. 1985. SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI TRIVUTARIES STUDY AREA ENVIROMENTAL INVENTORY - WILDLIFE RESOURES. MISCELLANEOUS PAPER EL-85-3, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI. 90P.

  • Mikesic, D. G., and C. T. Larue. 2003. Recent status and distribution of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 48:624-634.

  • Mumford, R. E., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1982. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 537 pp.

  • Mumford, Russell E. 1969. Distribution of the Mammals of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 114 pp.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1985. Draft Environmental impact statement - Honeoye Creek Wetland Project.

  • Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. 1991. Northwest Territories Wildlife Sketches: Arctic and Red Foxes of the Northwest Territories. 1st Edition. Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.

  • Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch (eds.) 1987. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 1150 pp.

  • Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch. 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association under the authority of the Licensing Agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada. 1150 pp.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Peterson, R.L. 1966. The Mammals of Eastern Canada. Oxford University Press, Toronto, Ontario. 465 pp.

  • Phillips, M. L., W. R. Clark, S. M. Nusser, M. A. Sovada, and R. J. Greenwood. 2004. Analysis of predator movement in prairie landscapes with contrasting grassland composition. Journal of Mammalogy 85:187-195.

  • Ralls, K., and P. J. White. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kits foxes by larger canids. Journal of Mammalogy 76:723-729.

  • Runge, W. and D. Henry. 1988. Wild furbearers of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture, Booklet.

  • Runge, W. and J. Mulhern. 1985. The status of wild furbearers in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. February. Mimeo. 43pp.

  • SAMUEL, D. E. AND B. B. NELSON. 1982. FOXES. PP. 475-489 IN WILD MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA. OP CIT.

  • SCHMIDLY, D.J. 1983. TEXAS MAMMALS EAST OF THE BALCOMES FAULT ZONE.

  • Sargent, A. B. 1972. Red fox spatial characteristics in relation to waterfowl predation. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:225-236.

  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

  • Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals: Their Natural History, Classification and Distribution. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Seton, E.T. 1953. Lives of game animals: an account of those and animals in America, north of the Mexican border which are considered "game", either because they have held the attention of sportsmen, or received the proctection of law. C. T. Brandford, Boston. v.4 of 8, pt 2.

  • Sheldon, J. W. 1991. Wild dogs: the natural history of the nondomestic Canidae. Academic Press. 248 pp.

  • Slough, B.G. 1999. Status recommendation for Yukon mammals and amphibians. IN Hoefs, M. (ed.) Status assessment and proposed "at risk" designations of Yukon's vertebrate species - a technical analysis. Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch unpubl. report.

  • Statham, M., J. Murdoch, J. Janecka, K. Aubry, C. Edwards, C. Soulsbury, O. Berry, Z. Wang, D. Harrison, M. Pearch, L. Tomsett, J. Chupasko, and B. Sacks. 2014. Range-wide multilocus phylogeography of the red fox reveals ancient continental divergence, minimal genomic exchange and distinct demographic histories. Molecular Ecology 23: 4813-4830.

  • Storm, G. L., R. D. Andrews, P. L. Phillips, R. A. Bishop, D. B. Siniff, and J. R. Tester. 1976. Morphology, reproduction, dispersal, and mortality of midwestern red fox populations. Wildlife Monographs No. 49, 82 pp.

  • THORNTON, W.A., GORDON C. CREEL, AND R.E. TRIMBLE. 1971. HYBRIDIZATION IN THE FOX GENUS VULPES IN WEST TEXAS. SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 15(4):473-484.

  • Taketazu, M. 1979. Fox family: four seasons of animal life. [translated and adapted by Richard L. Gage from Kitakitsune hokuhen no gen.ya o kakeru and Tobe kitakitsune] Weatherhill, New York, New York. 139p.

  • Taylor, J.D. 1990. Ontario Foxes. Ontario Out Of Doors 22(2): 24-26,45.

  • Tlen, D.L. 1993. Kluane Southern Tutchone glossary: english to Southern Tutchone. First edition. The Northern Research Institute, Whitehorse, Yukon. 38 pp.

  • Tullar, B.F. and L.T. Berchielli. 1980. Movement of the red fox in central New York. New York Fish and Game J. 27(2):179-204.

  • Tullar, B.F. and L.T. Berchielli. 1981. Population characteristics and mortality factors of the red fox in central New York. New York Fish and Game J. 28(2):138-149.

  • Tullar, B.F., L.T. Berchielli and E.P. Saggese. 1976. Some implications of communal denning and pup adoption among red foxes in New York. New York Fish and Game J. 23(1):92-95.

  • Voigt, D.R. 1987. Red Fox. pp. 378-392 in Novak, M., Baker, J.A., Obbard, M.E., and B. Malloch (eds). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ottawa. 1150pp.

  • Vulpes vulpes/Red Fox. Copyright Dave Fraser.

  • WARD, R.P. 1965. THE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 11:309-330.

  • WOOD, J. E., D. E. DAVIS, E. V. KOMAREK. 1958. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOX POPULATIONS IN RELATION TO VEGETATION IN SOUTHERN GEORGIA. ECOLOGY 39:160-162.

  • Whitaker, John O., Jr., and Russell E. Mumford. 2009. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN.

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [Available online at: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/ ]

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.

  • Wolfe, J.L. 1971. Mississippi land mammals. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi 44 pp.

  • YEAGER, L.E. 1937. SOME HABITS OF SOUTHERN FUR-BEARERS AS INDICATED BY TRAPPING. AMER. MIDLAND NAT. 18(2):1072-1078.

  • Youngman, P.M. 1975. Mammals of the Yukon Territory. Publications in Zoology, No. 10., National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 192 pp.

  • ZUMBAUGH, D.M., AND J.R. CHOATE. 1985. HISTORICAL BIOGEO- GRAPHY OF FOXES IN KANSAS. TRANS.KANS.ACAD.SCI.88:1-13.

  • Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990b. California's wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.